Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
If you read page 10 of the judgement it states the court didn't consider that United Soils wasn't going to Poison the children. The Judge completely ignores the operational pan for the disposal site and instead allows the heresay from a special interest group to be repeated without consequence.
I have an issue with this. People need to be more responsible for false information that they pass on.
Though I do think the judgement in general is right because the women apologized as requested in the original demand. And then the company still sued her based on her apology not being genuine.
|
That is not at all what the court said. What it said is that it is not the courts' place to evaluate the substance of that report, and that it is inappropriate to argue that the same report defines the context around which such claims could be considered defamatory or that failure to read the report disqualified Mohammed from participating in public debate over this issue. The argument you are making would basically have given the company the ability to
define truth. Instead, the court considered a wider context (described on page 11) that included comments posted to the town council's own Twitter account and a local newspaper article, both of which indicated a potential concern about the risk of contaminants. In the larger context, Mohammed's concerns would quite clearly have been made in good faith and done honestly.
That they bullied her into an apology and the sued anyway was just the icing on top of the cake.